TTRPGs & D&D

[docsilence]

Also, unrelated — a friend is DMing for the first time and got her first silly “the DM is traumatizing me” meme and was actually hurt by it (“how did I traumatize her?”). I had to explain the whole trend of players wanting to be traumatized by their DM and then teasing them about it thing the kids are doing these days, and then explained how the group chat changes my display name and waits for me to say something wild to screen shot it. Like… this one:

 

[JakeEkiss]

Player in my Weds. night weekly game -- this is his second campaign ever, still has that new player enthusiasm -- asked if I'd run a Halloween bottle episode where the players are playing alternate timeline versions of themselves (this campaign is dealing with branching timelines and time travel). So I guess I'm running that, because it's too fun to NOT do it.

This is the same group that ran D&D but everyone is a muppet during our Christmas one shot last year but didn't tell me they were all showing up as muppets.

This group sounds delightful.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

I'm putting together my own Halloween one-shot for the year. This time, I'm running Brindlewood Bay. It's a Powered by the Apocalypse system where the PCs are a group of elderly widows—members of the local Murder Mavens mystery book club—who find themselves solving actual murder mysteries in their quaint New England town. It's basically Murder, She Wrote with the lightest dash of Lovecraftian horror. For those unfamiliar, PbtA games require relatively little prep. The "plot" is written in real time by players and the DM.

Brindlewood Bay is particularly interesting because each adventure (or mystery, in its case) gives you a murder, a list of suspects, and a list of clues. How players discover and connect those clues is entirely up to them. There is no canonical solution. It's figured out on the fly between players and DM. I'm not going in with a single suspect in mind. The exciting part for me is watching the players hyper-fixate on something I say during RP or a random clue I throw out. I've never run anything like this before, but I'm hoping to keep it light and fun.

---

On a negative note, I played in that one-shot of Mythic Bastionland earlier this week. The system was neat and the DM understood the assignment. It's dream-like and unsettling. You never know what's objectively true versus hearsay, a lie, or folk magic. When solving one myth, you inevitably come across another three or four. Some impede your progress to your initial goal, others are set dressing. I found the combat lacking, but that's me with almost every D20 system. It tries to give you options, but you wind up using the same two things in every combat.

I didn't have a great time for two reasons:

1. This group doesn't respect my time. The session ran for six and a half hours. Now, I've played in games that were four, five, or six hours and had fun, but I think that's the exception. Notably, none of them were on a weekday. For me, the sweet spot is around 3.5. I found myself loving @docsilence's shorter 2.5-hour sessions, too. They leave me wanting more, not itching to get away from the table. At one point, I told the group I had a hard stop in an hour. The game went on for another two hours after that. If I hear that as a DM, I'm rushing to get the player out of there.
2. One player drives me up a wall. I've played with him before and found it unpleasant. I thought it was just the character he was playing, but no, it's him. No matter the setting, he plays an evil character. If you say so to his face, he'll argue. He's careless about murdering civilians, says uncomfortable things, and is generally immature. He's the only murderhobo I've played with. To me, in a heroic fantasy setting, playing an evil character goes against the spirit of the game. I'd describe his personality as "internet troll."

I could use some advice on the second point. That group wants to turn this one-shot into a full campaign. Getting out of it is easy enough. I can say I'm in enough TTRPG games right now, which is true.

The bigger problem is avoiding this guy in the future. These are all real-life friends. The group started as my high school friends and one player's brother, and has expanded to the same group plus the brother's friends. I generally like the brother's friends. One of them has become one of my favorite people. The internet troll, however, has always been someone I've tolerated.

When I set up my sci-fi campaign, I didn't self-select my players. Big mistake. I was strong-armed into including the internet troll. I'm only planning to run this game once a month (and it hasn't happened since our session 0 back in August), but that's still a lot more of this guy than I would choose. I was planning to run it in perpetuity. If I can't handle this guy, I guess that's no longer an option?

 

[Damien]

Regarding game length: I've definitely played and enjoyed 'marathon' sessions. But it was always when no one had to work the next day for whatever reason, and when the game was just JIVING with everyone and no one really wanted to stop. It was definitely a group decision constantly punctuated by 'do you guys want to keep going?' If anyone had said 'no, I've gotta stop' - that would have been it.
Doc's game has been pretty perfect where it's like 'we did our BIG stuff for this session, there's no other big stuff we can do - but we can do some little stuff for an extra half-hour or so, or we can stop now and start here next time.' That feels good to me. It's an easy out for anyone that just wants to be done, but if everyone is feeling it we can carry on with the less crunchy stuff to line up everything for next session.

Also, it's probably easier (in my opinion) to hit a stride for a longer-form game in that 4-5 hour range in person than over Zoom or a VTT.


In regards to a problem player, and prefacing this with I am the person that I am and I think everyone gets that by now and my advice will always come with that caveat: Respectfully, you gotta put on your big boy pants and have a hard conversation. The way he plays isn't compatible not just with your way of playing, but even with your general personality. You just gotta sit him down and say 'dude, this isn't fun for me and either we have to work out a way we can both enjoy these games, or we gotta play in separate games.'

The only other option - besides sacrificing your own mental health for his sake - is to call him out on his shit right at the table, mid-session, and be aggressive enough about it that everyone kind of needs to get involved and pick a side. That's a gambit, and can be really uncomfortable for everyone. But sometimes it's necessary if you're reasonably sure everyone agrees with you and will be like 'yeah dude, you gotta tone it down.'

I imagine the guy is just a cunt, and you're not gonna uncuntify him. But it's always -possible- that he just doesn't realize how disruptive he's actually being. I've definitely played with people where all it took was saying 'you are actively making this game not fun for me to be part of' and those people just turned around entirely because they never even considered they were making you not want to play. Other people don't care.

If he doesn't care -- you probably know the answer. The groups you play in have to decide who they'd rather play with, because it can't be both of you.

 

[altcunningham]

I prefer 5-6 hour sessions, but it depends on the table. Need a good DM that can improv. Truly improv. Players need to actually be playing.

I don't want to lose half an hour or more to ADHD tangents about how the way I described my spell reminds you of an anime that you watched, and now want to discuss with the table. I don't want to take a scene seriously with the DM while the rest of the table sidebars about their critical role crush or what movie they thought was terrible that someone on letterboxed said was good. I don't want to lose time to someone being a spreadsheet junkie about inventory and loot.

When I played 3.5, maybe this is normal, but every fight we would have to go over all the loot, which would include gems and other items, and the self declared inventory guy was writing it all down in a leather-bound journal in in character calligraphy and it took like half an hour. Every. Fight. I do not need your Scrooge McDuck Christmas Carol Ledger bro.

But when it comes together. My Dragon Heist, Mad Mage, and Avernus games were all from a local store. Paying for your seat basically screened out fools and people with scheduling issues. Every other Sunday. Locked in rain or shine. DM kept a leash on side talk. Play. Lunch break. Play.

It was glorious.

Other table I had was just self policed, everyone came to play and tell a collaborative story.

And I ran Star Wars online for 5 hours on Saturday nights, but again, everyone "bought in" with the characters and fantasy. Get up, order food, walk your dog, draw, organise your notes, but don't throw on YouTube or build a Lego set.

It's cool to joke around or go on a tangent. It's going to happen. But you got to read the room, and respect people's time. This might be some people's only bastion of sanity for the week.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Regarding game length: I've definitely played and enjoyed 'marathon' sessions. But it was always when no one had to work the next day for whatever reason, and when the game was just JIVING with everyone and no one really wanted to stop. It was definitely a group decision constantly punctuated by 'do you guys want to keep going?' If anyone had said 'no, I've gotta stop' - that would have been it.

This is what I do when I prepare more than one session in advance. I think it's the right approach; people have lives outside of the game.

The way he plays isn't compatible not just with your way of playing, but even with your general personality. You just gotta sit him down and say 'dude, this isn't fun for me and either we have to work out a way we can both enjoy these games, or we gotta play in separate games.'

The only other option - besides sacrificing your own mental health for his sake - is to call him out on his shit right at the table, mid-session, and be aggressive enough about it that everyone kind of needs to get involved and pick a side. That's a gambit, and can be really uncomfortable for everyone. But sometimes it's necessary if you're reasonably sure everyone agrees with you and will be like 'yeah dude, you gotta tone it down.'

But it's always -possible- that he just doesn't realize how disruptive he's actually being. I've definitely played with people where all it took was saying 'you are actively making this game not fun for me to be part of' and those people just turned around entirely because they never even considered they were making you not want to play.

Good advice. I would rather approach someone in private, but I think doing so publicly, especially as the GM, might be valuable.

"I like running this game, but not when you act like that." Then at least the other players see the warning and might tamp down on him without me having to step in.

Given my disposition, I'd be more likely to punish him in-game, passive-aggressively, than to call him out. We all know that isn't effective, though.

I imagine the guy is just a cunt, and you're not gonna uncuntify him.

He's a cunt. He revels in getting a reaction, even (or especially) shock or disgust. I find him an unpleasant person. I don't understand why they're still friends with him.

One member of my friend group has the Damien gene of assuredly expressing himself. He makes a fuss when the other guy is around. "Why are you like that?" "Nobody thinks that's funny." "Just ___ being a child."

I don't want to lose half an hour or more to ADHD tangents about how the way I described my spell reminds you of an anime that you watched, and now want to discuss with the table.

One member of my table has this issue. They're either going off on tangents about another D&D game or going on a 90-minute in-game shopping session. When I run things, I aggressively usher them from one scene to the next to cut down on it.

But when it comes together. My Dragon Heist, Mad Mage, and Avernus games were all from a local store. Paying for your seat basically screened out fools and people with scheduling issues. Every other Sunday. Locked in rain or shine. DM kept a leash on side talk. Play. Lunch break. Play.

Ginny Di had a recent video about paid DMs/games. Paying for your spot does appear to have that effect.

 

[Damien]

"I like running this game, but not when you act like that." Then at least the other players see the warning and might tamp down on him without me having to step in.

I wouldn't necessarily count on this just because they've clearly not made any attempt to stop him yet, right? But even just you saying it out loud and kind of forcing other people to acknowledge it's happening might help.

One member of my friend group has the Damien gene of assuredly expressing himself. He makes a fuss when the other guy is around. "Why are you like that?" "Nobody thinks that's funny." "Just ___ being a child."

I have never been described as 'assuredly expressing myself.' That's a nice way of saying I'm blunt asshole. I like it. Might put it on a t-shirt.
But yeah, sometimes it's just necessary. 'Dude, you're being an irritant and no one is enjoying playing with you.' How it gets said is super dependent on who it is and what that relationship is like, and whether or not anyone wants to actually salvage him as part of the group or if it's just time to say goodbye.

And that's the biggest part of it; sometimes there's no 'fixing' the problem between people at a table. Sometimes someone just has to go. When you take on the role of DM, you definitely take on the responsibility, in my opinion, of dismissing disruptive players. 'If you behave this way, you're not welcome at the next game.' If anyone else has a problem with that, maybe it's time to reevaluate the entire group and what everyone wants from it.

Paying for your spot does appear to have that effect.

I feel like I would hate playing in a game I paid for. I think I would put too much pressure on myself to make it 'worth it' - and also not to disrupt anyone else's enjoyment of something they paid for. Now I'm second-guessing everything I do and say in the game to try to avoid harming the experience for anyone else, and ultimately end up not enjoying it for myself.

 

[JakeEkiss]

1. This group doesn't respect my time. The session ran for six and a half hours. Now, I've played in games that were four, five, or six hours and had fun, but I think that's the exception. Notably, none of them were on a weekday. For me, the sweet spot is around 3.5. I found myself loving @docsilence's shorter 2.5-hour sessions, too. They leave me wanting more, not itching to get away from the table. At one point, I told the group I had a hard stop in an hour. The game went on for another two hours after that. If I hear that as a DM, I'm rushing to get the player out of there.

Yeah no. If I say "hard out in an hour" it means -hard out-. You get a 15 min heads up and then I'm leaving. I got places to be. A DM or players that let that slide aren't respecting the table. I'm in three groups now, one I DM and two more including the AT one, and I can't imagine any of them doing that. As a DM if a player gives me that heads up I make it happen.

My 'home' game, the one I DM, is a strict 4hrs. front to back. That's enough time to fart around for half an hour if we want to talk about a tv show or politics or life, but still enough time to get some good progress on a story. Granted, there's always 10-30 mins of pregame table talk since most of my group has known each other, or at least me, for upwards of a decade or more.

When I set up my sci-fi campaign, I didn't self-select my players. Big mistake. I was strong-armed into including the internet troll. I'm only planning to run this game once a month (and it hasn't happened since our session 0 back in August), but that's still a lot more of this guy than I would choose. I was planning to run it in perpetuity. If I can't handle this guy, I guess that's no longer an option?

So if you want to go a softer option, bring the current story section to a close, retire the game, and then wait a couple of months. Come back, re-assign your group (say you'd like to run with a smaller crew this time, easier for you as DM to manage, which is true) and pick up the story after a time jump.

This is actually how I would advance my settings after aborted games for years. If a game fizzled (always due to scheduling), I'd DM fiat the ending (usually a mix of happy/sad, so I could carry forward villain plots but I wasn't totally funking the characters if a player returned) and then fast forward the world six months, a year, ten years, and pick up anew. It has a nice bonus of giving your world a lot of free texture because your old PCs become NPCs in the world and their half-adventures become history or legend.

I do recommend being *extremely* selective with your tables. They should be like the exclusive section at a club. You gotta know the club owner and the owner needs to like you. Pretend you just don't like running for large groups if you want to be nice, but police the shit out of who you run for. You're putting in too much effort as DM to be miserable doing it.

That said, you can just kick the guy, it sometimes sucks, but sometimes it's the right thing. That or...

The only other option - besides sacrificing your own mental health for his sake - is to call him out on his shit right at the table, mid-session, and be aggressive enough about it that everyone kind of needs to get involved and pick a side. That's a gambit, and can be really uncomfortable for everyone. But sometimes it's necessary if you're reasonably sure everyone agrees with you and will be like 'yeah dude, you gotta tone it down.'

This is a good option, I think. Don't make it about the game you want to run, make it about the table and respecting the game everyone else wants to play. "Hey, that behavior isn't in keeping with the tone of game your fellow players are trying to achieve. You could play any number of characters that would match what everyone else is going for, why are you choosing to be the wangrod? If you'd rather play another game you don't need to play this one."

Fair warning, you might lose the group over it, but I promise there are better groups out there. I'm currently playing with three of them.

He's a cunt. He revels in getting a reaction, even (or especially) shock or disgust. I find him an unpleasant person. I don't understand why they're still friends with him.

One member of my friend group has the Damien gene of assuredly expressing himself. He makes a fuss when the other guy is around. "Why are you like that?" "Nobody thinks that's funny." "Just ___ being a child."

Agree loudly with that member of the group when they speak up. "Yeah, I really don't dig that behavior either." "Seriously, can you tone it down?" "He's right, that ISN'T funny." The more it becomes apparent that this idea is the majority POV, the more people feel comfortable policing a peer. Eventually the peer either becomes socialized properly, or they get evicted from the group and find some other poor souls to torment.

I have never been described as 'assuredly expressing myself.' That's a nice way of saying I'm blunt asshole. I like it. Might put it on a t-shirt.

Interacting with you live has given me added texture and I'm finding your bluntness more charming the longer we play. Sincerely. No bullshit. Also you hate the monarchy enough to refuse to pledge to them and I respect anyone who would tell them to fuck off.

And that's the biggest part of it; sometimes there's no 'fixing' the problem between people at a table. Sometimes someone just has to go. When you take on the role of DM, you definitely take on the responsibility, in my opinion, of dismissing disruptive players. 'If you behave this way, you're not welcome at the next game.' If anyone else has a problem with that, maybe it's time to reevaluate the entire group and what everyone wants from it.

100% this. There was a moment in my last long game where there was some friction at the table and it was sort of threatening group cohesion, and I took everyone aside and did a one on one where it was like "hey, if this is where we're at I just don't want to run" and because we're all adults, it got sorted, and that game kept going for like two more years. And we're all still playing. Sometimes the adult conversation is exactly the right thing. If nothing else it sorts out if these are the players for you.

I feel like I would hate playing in a game I paid for. I think I would put too much pressure on myself to make it 'worth it' - and also not to disrupt anyone else's enjoyment of something they paid for. Now I'm second-guessing everything I do and say in the game to try to avoid harming the experience for anyone else, and ultimately end up not enjoying it for myself.

Agreed. I'd also hate being a paid DM because then I'd be an employee of the players. Nah. This is my hobby. A hobby I like and take seriously as a hobby, but a hobby none the less. I'm not clocking in for it. We're here to have fun and I'm playing host, but that's it. I don't want to owe anybody a game because money changed hands. I want us all to just enjoy showing up.